The Murray Aftermath

First topic message reminder :

Andy Murray today contemplates the loss of his US Open crown amidst a heavy defeat against an on-fire Stan Wawrinka. For some reason he looked the shell of the player of the last year or so but why am I hearing/reading such negative crap in the media and such-like?

Lets look at a few facts here in that Stan was in the form of his life (his words)going into the match and it showed whilst Murray clearly was below par hence the heavy defeat. However, the media and others are calling Murray into question which I find ridiculous. Lets just remember that at Wimbledon we have seen Rafa have far worse results at earlier stages against Lukas Rosol and Steve Darcis (both ranked 100+) whilst Stan is ranked in the top ten in the world. Roger Federer himself was mugged by Stakhovsky at a far earlier stage at Wimbledon as well. What makes the flak even more ridiculous is that Andy had reached the last four slam finals he had played in winning two and is on a run of reaching eleven quarter-finals at slams in succession (barring French Open where he was injured) and the last time Andy exited earlier than the 3rd Round at a slam was the 2008 Australian Open when he lost to eventual finalist Jo Tsonga in the 1st Round. Impressive stats in anyones eyes.

As for the aftermath and where Andy goes from here well he must address how he approaches matches against hard-hitters. Also I wish he'd cut out this tosh and talk of peaking for slams and get back to basics and being ultra-competitive in every tournament he enters. Ranking points ARE important Andy as you may have had an easier route in the US Open if you had kept your No.2 ranking prior to the US Open. Anyway hopefully he can get back to winning ways at tournaments between now and the end of the season and reassert himself.

PS If you wish to offer constructive criticism then that is fine but if you are on the wind-up please do me a favour and others looking for sensible conversation and take your remarks to another thread.

Sorry to be harsh Hawkeye, your cc criticism was a good post, just dont try winding people up with the others

hawkeye wrote:Lydian  You are lucky you are not hated. I tried my best to come up with constructive criticism as requested by CC. CC even said he liked it  But I still got this damming warning

falzy21 wrote:Its simple hawkeye. If your post isnt trying to wind people up or slander somebody, including a player like your analysis post, which has received universal praise, were all ears.

Otherwise wed rather you didnt bother and you went and did something else with your life

Unfortunately, HE, like a drug user who now says they are clean, your fair comments about Murray can rarely be believed, due to the 1000+ junk ones

I'm a Murray fan that is completely happy with how his game had changed. I think if he'd stayed the same as 2009 he might never have won a slam. Lydian thinks otherwise, but the facts are he didn't win one then and he has now. It's since Lendl came in that he has really changed his game, and that has resulted in 4 slam finals in a row, 2 wins and an Olympic gold. Really hard to argue those results.

Some people clearly preferred watching him 4 years ago, I prefer him winning slams. I wish he'd become this apparently more boring player years ago!

He won both his slams beating the no.1 player in the world. So people can go on about wind, Rafa injured, luck, whatever they like... You could * most slams if you tried hard enough. Means nothing to me. Nobody will ever remove his name from that Wimbledon winners board, that's what matters.

As always when you get more successful you don't just get more followers, you get more detractors. If this last 15 months is "anti-tennis" then long may it continue as far as I'm concerned.

What Murray did was realise that his (or anybody's) talent wasn't enough to get him the success he wanted in the modern game. He saw from Rafa and Djoko that extraordinary fitness levels were required to get to the top and so he followed suit in order to achieve his goals.
I don't think he was overly concerned about what some people would feel about the relative aesthetic qualities of his 'old' and 'new' games. Maybe he even feels the same way, but also that it's more important to him to be winning slams than to be pleasing on the eye.
I don't buy the 'huge slice of luck' bit though, that's just bunkum IMHO. You could probably make a similar case for 95% of slam winners if you really wanted to.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't think he was overly concerned about what some people would feel about the relative aesthetic qualities of his 'old' and 'new' games. Maybe he even feels the same way, but also that it's more important to him to be winning slams than to be pleasing on the eye.

Agree with this.

While I also feel Lydian is going a bit too negative on Andy, I do agree with his premise that Andy's game has not improved all that much over the last couple of years.  He is mentally tougher, and got the bounces now that he did not before, but his game itself is not much better.

summerblues wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't think he was overly concerned about what some people would feel about the relative aesthetic qualities of his 'old' and 'new' games. Maybe he even feels the same way, but also that it's more important to him to be winning slams than to be pleasing on the eye.

Agree with this.

While I also feel Lydian is going a bit too negative on Andy, I do agree with his premise that Andy's game has not improved all that much over the last couple of years.  He is mentally tougher, and got the bounces now that he did not before, but his game itself is not much better.

I am not sure any Murray fans have said his game has massively improved though. Forehand certainly has but the biggest change has been in the mental area of his game hence he went from perrenial slam nearly man to multiple slam winner.

hawkeye wrote:Lydian  You are lucky you are not hated. I tried my best to come up with constructive criticism as requested by CC. CC even said he liked it  But I still got this damming warning

falzy21 wrote:Its simple hawkeye. If your post isnt trying to wind people up or slander somebody, including a player like your analysis post, which has received universal praise, were all ears.

Otherwise wed rather you didnt bother and you went and did something else with your life

Who said anything about you being hated? When you post drivel wrapped up in contorted reports to blacken Murray's name falsely what do you expect? Congratulations? Post sensibly as you did earlier in this thread then I am all ears but post drivel and falsehoods then expect condemnations.

socal1976 wrote:I disagree with most of this post although I think it is well thought out.

  Thanks.  All too often we only get either "great and well written post, I agree completely" or "what a rubbish post, totally wrong".

I am not saying that two years from now Rafa, Nole and Andy will have vanished.  I think they may still be near the top or perhaps even at the top, but I would expect them to be much less dominant than now.  They may still be winning slams, but they will not be the only ones winning them.

Born Slippy wrote:SB - who do you think will be winning slams in 2016 if not Novak, Andy or Rafa?

I don't know but three years is a long time.  It is not necessarily that I think that someone will come to replace them (though I do think that three years from now some of the youngsters will be fighting for the top spots) but rather that they will start coming back to the field even if nobody does.  It may be that it will be Wawrinkas of this world they will lose to more frequently.  Not because Wawrinka will have gotten better, but because they will no longer have the consistency they have now.  Sort of like Fed, who is not only losing to the younger generation these days, but often to the guys of his own generation that he would have never lost to before.

In regards the general thought that tennis players' prime age shifted to perhaps the late twenties, I am of two minds.

On one hand, we certainly see fewer young guys near the top and we see more older players in the rankings.  So, certainly, one possible conclusion is that prime age shifted.  However, I am not convinced that the conclusion is not just a knee-jerk reaction trying to provide justification without really being thought through.

I really only see one plausible argument as to why the age would have shifted - the increased physicality of today's tennis.  However, I also see enough counterpoints to make me question that conclusion:

- It is not all that obvious that increased physicality should lead to the prime age shifting.  RG has for a long time been quite physical, and I do not have a strong feel that it produced much older winners in the past than other slams.

- The two guys who are the best right now and who are also the best in physicality have both been doing well from a very young age.  Especially Nadal's game was always very physical yet he burst on the scene very young.

- While it is said that players can play at the top level up to 30+, even now there is little evidence of that among the very top players.  Most of the really best players of Fed's generation (i.e., those who are now around 30, or just above 30) have declined significantly by the time they reached 30.  Ferrer is very much an exception rather than a rule.

That all said, I also have to admit that - while I can see holes in the argument that the peak age has advanced - I do not have a solid explanation as to why the average age of players in top 100 has been advancing.  I am tentatively thinking of a combination of two possible reasons:

1.  The current crop of young guys just is not all that good
2.  Increased amount of money in tennis makes it worthwhile for older players to hang around.  This second point would be consistent with the observation that while there are many more 30+ year old players in top 100 than in the past, we still see most of the very top players declining significantly by age 30.

I do admit I am not certain either way.  Maybe the prime age has indeed shifted as much as some suggest.  We will see over time.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Lydian  You are lucky you are not hated. I tried my best to come up with constructive criticism as requested by CC. CC even said he liked it  But I still got this damming warning

falzy21 wrote:Its simple hawkeye. If your post isnt trying to wind people up or slander somebody, including a player like your analysis post, which has received universal praise, were all ears.

Otherwise wed rather you didnt bother and you went and did something else with your life

Who said anything about you being hated? When you post drivel wrapped up in contorted reports to blacken Murray's name falsely what do you expect? Congratulations? Post sensibly as you did earlier in this thread then I am all ears but post drivel and falsehoods then expect condemnations.

You are running this thread like a crazed dictator! I tried my best to contribute on your terms but it's still not possible to escape the threat's and insults. I will do something better with my life and write an article about Roger and Rafa   With strict rules about what any comments should consist of...

falzy. Thank you I did see your apology

Sorry if you see it that way hawkeye but do think you are having a massive over reaction. You were praised for your contribution and someone (not me) made a loose dig at your past posting history and that was it. As for a crazed dictator...err no. As I see it the warning on opening post has ensured no blatant WUMming here. Everyone that has contributed have made their point with their own view point and it has kept on topic and been relatively unheated discussion so think the warning served well.

I don't think anyone is saying that a player will still be at their peak at 30+.
 
The facts that get ignored is that numerous players are now peaking at around 27 to 30 and it's been this way for a few years, with the trend upwards
 
I actually don't really know why people want to argue against this. Maybe it's because the thought of the Top 3 dominating for another 3 years fills some with a sense of dread
 
But every way you look at the stats, they point the average peak age been around two years higher than it was 20 years ago, maybe three
 
But let's look at some facts;-
 
1) Murray and Djokjo are still two of the youngest players around, i.e. in the youngest half of the Top 100. We seem to forget that Gasguet and Wawrinka are one to two years  older thant them, no some new young bucks
2) We've not had a Top 20 teenager since Del Potro in 2008
3) A number of players have found their best and most consistent Tennis, above the age of 27
4) No teenagers in the Top 200
 
 
The reason is quite simple. You can no longer achieve the top prizes with just raw talent. Physical and mental maturity is needed to win any of the top prizes, i.e. Masters and above. This means that some teenagers might be the best in the world, but only for about two games - then the need for mentaly and physically getting through the match takes over and they are found wanting. Conversley, the more mature players get an advantage, because they know what to do at the correct time

HE, you can be more like me, direct with your crap and no need to sugar coat your stuff in layers of sneaky comnents. No need to pretend to know tennis internals, when you dont.

Murray btw is 100 times the better person then Nadal or Choko.

Be a public wum and windup like me, no shame in it.

summerblues wrote:While it is said that players can play at the top level up to 30+, even now there is little evidence of that among the very top players.  Most of the really best players of Fed's generation (i.e., those who are now around 30, or just above 30) have declined significantly by the time they reached 30.  Ferrer is very much an exception rather than a rule.

Youzny, could end up with his highest ranking ever ranking (It's certainly going to the best it's been for a few years) The nearly 30 year old, Kohlschieber, has improved his rankingduring the past couple of years. The nearly 31 years old Tursonov is poised to have his best year end ranking for five years. Both Niemenen and Montanes have both improved in the last two years at the age of 32 and 33 respectively. And I haven't even mentioned Haas

Based, on what's going on at the moment it would be surprising if the Top 3 have gone past their peak in three years. Maybe the Top 2 might, given that they were the last teenage superstars and hence mentally it's harder to keep that winning habit

summerblues wrote:The current crop of young guys just is not all that good

Or maybe the class of last decade were a lot better than we ever gave them credit for (me inlcuded!!) The newcomers can only be as good as they are allowed.

banbrotam wrote:Youzny, could end up with his highest ranking ever ranking (It's certainly going to the best it's been for a few years) The nearly 30 year old, Kohlschieber, has improved his rankingduring the past couple of years. The nearly 31 years old Tursonov is poised to have his best year end ranking for five years. Both Niemenen and Montanes have both improved in the last two years at the age of 32 and 33 respectively. And I haven't even mentioned Haas.

But these are exactly the kind of examples I talked about - players who never were quite the top tier just hanging around trying to extend their careers.  Youzhny is a former top 10 player; I very much doubt he will end up with his highest ever ranking.

banbrotam wrote:Or maybe the class of last decade were a lot better than we ever gave them credit for

What does that have to do with the price of bread?

It does not matter how spectacular they may or may not be, but it is not like it is them who are preventing the young guys from advancing.

All these weak era makeweights enjoying their best time. Obviously this is a stronger era, I mean that's logical? Right?

\"summerblues wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Or maybe the class of last decade were a lot better than we ever gave them credit for

What does that have to do with the price of bread?

It does not matter how spectacular they may or may not be, but it is not like it is them who are preventing the young guys from advancing.

 
So the ability of these players who are at 27+ has no bearing on how well the youngsters are doing? Put another way, if those over 27 or 30 were playing worse, then the youngsters would surely be better ranked?
 
These youngsters, constantly get beaten by these older players - that's why they are not in the Top 10, they get knocked out too early in too many tournaments to get the points needed. They aren't good enough because they are nowhere near their peak yet, because the peak age of a player has now risen
 
We can't keep saying that they are all not good enough!! In five to seven years, the likes of Raonic and Dimi, will actually be dominant force, simply because, these days, usually the ATP has the most players in the Top 100 in the 25 to 30 age bracket. If these are the best of the era, then we can't say they're not good enough!! We can say they are not good enough yet and then have to evaluate why. Simple!! There are older and wiser players above them and wiser players below them who often cause them a problem
 
I think in life if we want to deduce why a new trend is happening and it can be explained by stats and logic, then it's a valid explanation
 
You also miss your own point and hence mine. You argue that it's rare for any player to be at their peak at over 30 - but the examples I gave you are players who actually are at their peak or certainly high up the ladder of their abilities, shown throughout their career,
 
i.e. it's entirely feasible that the future of players will take this path;
 
1) They don't get near their best until around 24. i.e. they start been a bit more consistent but nothing outstanding
2) Age 24 to 28. They rise to their peak and in these latter years, start achieving the most they are going to do
3) Age 28 to 30. Continue on this path
4) 30+. A gently but not dramatic decline, depending on the motivation of the player
 
Of course not all players will follow this path, some might peak at 23 and get bored by the time they are 27. But it's apparent that teenagers or even those in their early 20's rocking up and winning three slams or even one, are over
 
Now this could entirely be due to the quality of the 26+ gang. We might just be witnessing the greatest era ever, which would make Novak's acheivements even more remarkable
 
i.e. in 10 years, the tend might go back two year
 
But I don't see who there is any doubt about the current trend

bogbrush wrote:All these weak era makeweights enjoying their best time. Obviously this is a stronger era, I mean that's logical? Right?

Well BB it's strong enough not to allow any youngsters to make an impact - but of course that doesn't guarantee a strong era. It does stack the evidence for it though. I mean if it's so weak - why is there no-one bursting through?

Strong era in terms of results and lack of progress by youngsters, doesn't mean that the Tennis is strong, though. But I prefered that Wawrinka / Nole SF to the Federer / Sampras one in 2001

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:All these weak era makeweights enjoying their best time. Obviously this is a stronger era, I mean that's logical? Right?

Well BB it's strong enough not to allow any youngsters to make an impact - but of course that doesn't guarantee a strong era. It does stack the evidence for it though. I mean if it's so weak - why is there no-one bursting through?

Strong era in terms of results and lack of progress by youngsters, doesn't mean that the Tennis is strong, though. But I prefered that Wawrinka / Nole SF to the Federer / Sampras one in 2001

I just keep wondering how these players who are dismissed as mid noughties nobodies are now, at their twilight, looking so good.

Obviously the competition must be much stronger? Am I getting that right?

Presumably if 4 or 5 players 21 or under were in the top 10 we'd be saying what a strong era it is with all these great young talents knocking the older generation off.
Whereas now we say what a strong era it is because of all of these great old talents keeping the younger generation at bay.

It's probably fair to say that if we want an era to be labelled 'strong' or 'weak' we'll figure out an argument to make it so depending on our preferred outcome.

Alas a nice thread to discuss upon and place some valid arguments.  

Answer to you question directly -> I won't blame on the media coz everybody have high hopes on Andy , I am terribly disappointed that he lost without winning the trophy I wanted to see him as the year end No.1, Murray is media's [atleast British Media's] favorite child and hence the obvious disappointment.

The last time such high hopes placed on a player was Roger Federer, any loss in the finals is considered as a failure, if one remembers after a close shave by Rafa in Wim 2008 finals people and media started to question about his retirement, poor Fed had to answer those Poopie questions when He clearly saw some Tennis left in him big time.

The good part was Fed never defended that defeat nor the questions and answered that spectacularly in 2009 with the FO-Wim duo and return back to No.1.

More or less similar was the case for Rafa in his earlier part of his career when people snugged him as just a clay courter and thats after making 2 Wimbledon finals . , only an inform Peak Federer could stop the ranging bull from 3 Consecutive Wimbledon trophies at that time.

So you should be a proud Andy fan to realize that people now seriously think Murray in that level, Murray should be more delighted to see his name discussed along with some big time legends.

Murray has the potential to be the biggest star of the planet at the moment, he does the hard work too and the best part he got a coach that can make him realize his potential, so all Murray have to do is take these defeats seriously and work hard for it to not happen again.

Yes no shame in losing to Stan the Man given the form, even if it happens 10 times in a row its still not an issue as long Murray could muster some slams and some day realize his potential of becoming no.1

Winning became a problem for Fed since people and media started to expect too much out of Fed, now similar is the case for Murray, lets put this way if he wins all 4 slams in 2014, then even if he loses 1 slam in 2015 and wins the rest they will still question Murray's form and level based on that 1 defeat than ignore it based on other 3 results.

With Success comes criticism with hell lot of success comes hell lot of criticism .  

hawkeye wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Lydian  You are lucky you are not hated. I tried my best to come up with constructive criticism as requested by CC. CC even said he liked it  But I still got this damming warning

falzy21 wrote:Its simple hawkeye. If your post isnt trying to wind people up or slander somebody, including a player like your analysis post, which has received universal praise, were all ears.

Otherwise wed rather you didnt bother and you went and did something else with your life

Who said anything about you being hated? When you post drivel wrapped up in contorted reports to blacken Murray's name falsely what do you expect? Congratulations? Post sensibly as you did earlier in this thread then I am all ears but post drivel and falsehoods then expect condemnations.

You are running this thread like a crazed dictator! I tried my best to contribute on your terms but it's still not possible to escape the threat's and insults. I will do something better with my life and write an article about Roger and Rafa   With strict rules about what any comments should consist of...

falzy. Thank you I did see your apology

Actually I see HE as a very decent poster and a nice civilized poster who expresses his/her views in a clean documented manner without retorting to insults or abuses, I have myself had arguments with HE and taking digs at each other but it never went out of civilized manner.  

Its a public forum and everybody should be allowed to express the views as long as its done in a civilized manner without insults.  

banbrotam wrote:

\"summerblues wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Or maybe the class of last decade were a lot better than we ever gave them credit for

What does that have to do with the price of bread?

It does not matter how spectacular they may or may not be, but it is not like it is them who are preventing the young guys from advancing.

 
So the ability of these players who are at 27+ has no bearing on how well the youngsters are doing? Put another way, if those over 27 or 30 were playing worse, then the youngsters would surely be better ranked?

Ok, I misunderstood what you were saying.  I thought you were suggesting the top three were a lot better but you are suggesting that maybe the entire generation was a lot better.  Nevertheless, I still disagree.  If the entire generation around Rafa at al had been that great, we would have seen a reduction in the average age in the top 100 when they were coming along; but that never happened.

In any event, as I had said before, I am not certain that 27-30 is not the peak age now, I am just saying that I can see arguments in both directions.

Also, for all our arguing, we never actually stated what we mean by "peak years" vs "start of decline".  Maybe in terms of raw numbers we do not even disagree .  Over the four years 2010-2013, Rafa/Nole/Andy will have won 14 out of 16 slams played (Roger winning the other two).  If you are suggesting 27-30 as the "peak years" I read it to mean that they should pretty much repeat that over the 2014-2017 period (if not maybe do even better ).  I certainly do not expect that, but it is not like I expect them to fall off the cliff either.  I think they will likely continue to dominate in the immediate future (say next year) and only slowly start declining later.  If I were to guess how many slams combined the three of them will win during 2014-2017, I would probably guess 6-8 (and could perhaps, at a stretch, be convinced of even more) but certainly not something like, say, 12-16.

How many slams do you expect the three of them to win in 2014-2017?

bogbrush wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:All these weak era makeweights enjoying their best time. Obviously this is a stronger era, I mean that's logical? Right?

Well BB it's strong enough not to allow any youngsters to make an impact - but of course that doesn't guarantee a strong era. It does stack the evidence for it though. I mean if it's so weak - why is there no-one bursting through?

Strong era in terms of results and lack of progress by youngsters, doesn't mean that the Tennis is strong, though. But I prefered that Wawrinka / Nole SF to the Federer / Sampras one in 2001

I just keep wondering how these players who are dismissed as mid noughties nobodies are now, at their twilight, looking so good.

Obviously the competition must be much stronger? Am I getting that right?

Nadal, Djoko, Murray. Tsonga, Gasquet and Berdych came blasting into the top ten / getting to Masters finals and in some cases deep in slams with far greater ease than their young equivalents of today

There has to be some reason for it.

i.e. either they are far better than today's youngsters or the players they stepped over, weren't that good. Significantly, even though a lot of those from the mid noughties have made comebacks that I alluded to earlier - they've not overtaken any of the above mentioned. Ironically, it's only the much maligned Ferrer who has stood up to them.

Personally, I think Novak and Andy weren't scarred by Roger beatings, they saw him as a giant to be toppled and so milked every last ounce of talent / application out of themselves. This has then forced their other peers to at least have a go at getting better.

Then the older ones start realising that if they apply themselves in a similar manner, maybe their results will improve. All this makes it harder for the new youngsters, who now have to to do a bit more than an 80's version

None of this, is a measure of the quality of the Tennis. That will always be a personal judgement

summerblues wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

\"summerblues wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Or maybe the class of last decade were a lot better than we ever gave them credit for

What does that have to do with the price of bread?

It does not matter how spectacular they may or may not be, but it is not like it is them who are preventing the young guys from advancing.

 
So the ability of these players who are at 27+ has no bearing on how well the youngsters are doing? Put another way, if those over 27 or 30 were playing worse, then the youngsters would surely be better ranked?

Ok, I misunderstood what you were saying.  I thought you were suggesting the top three were a lot better but you are suggesting that maybe the entire generation was a lot better.  Nevertheless, I still disagree.  If the entire generation around Rafa at al had been that great, we would have seen a reduction in the average age in the top 100 when they were coming along; but that never happened.

In any event, as I had said before, I am not certain that 27-30 is not the peak age now, I am just saying that I can see arguments in both directions.

Also, for all our arguing, we never actually stated what we mean by "peak years" vs "start of decline".  Maybe in terms of raw numbers we do not even disagree .  Over the four years 2010-2013, Rafa/Nole/Andy will have won 14 out of 16 slams played (Roger winning the other two).  If you are suggesting 27-30 as the "peak years" I read it to mean that they should pretty much repeat that over the 2014-2017 period (if not maybe do even better ).  I certainly do not expect that, but it is not like I expect them to fall off the cliff either.  I think they will likely continue to dominate in the immediate future (say next year) and only slowly start declining later.  If I were to guess how many slams combined the three of them will win during 2014-2017, I would probably guess 6-8 (and could perhaps, at a stretch, be convinced of even more) but certainly not something like, say, 12-16.

How many slams do you expect the three of them to win in 2014-2017?

Very difficult getting the wording correct with such discussions. Lydian's pieces shows this as where does 2010 fit into his argument!! I'd expect Rafa, Novak and Andy to win 3 out of 4 slams per year up to 2017 - providing they are reasonably healthy

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:All these weak era makeweights enjoying their best time. Obviously this is a stronger era, I mean that's logical? Right?

Well BB it's strong enough not to allow any youngsters to make an impact - but of course that doesn't guarantee a strong era. It does stack the evidence for it though. I mean if it's so weak - why is there no-one bursting through?

Strong era in terms of results and lack of progress by youngsters, doesn't mean that the Tennis is strong, though. But I prefered that Wawrinka / Nole SF to the Federer / Sampras one in 2001

I just keep wondering how these players who are dismissed as mid noughties nobodies are now, at their twilight, looking so good.

Obviously the competition must be much stronger? Am I getting that right?

Nadal, Djoko, Murray. Tsonga, Gasquet and Berdych came blasting into the top ten / getting to Masters finals and in some cases deep in slams with far greater ease than their young equivalents of today

There has to be some reason for it.

i.e. either they are far better than today's youngsters or the players they stepped over, weren't that good. Significantly, even though a lot of those from the mid noughties have made comebacks that I alluded to earlier - they've not overtaken any of the above mentioned. Ironically, it's only the much maligned Ferrer who has stood up to them.

Personally, I think Novak and Andy weren't scarred by Roger beatings, they saw him as a giant to be toppled and so milked every last ounce of talent / application out of themselves. This has then forced their other peers to at least have a go at getting better.

Then the older ones start realising that if they apply themselves in a similar manner, maybe their results will improve. All this makes it harder for the new youngsters, who now have to to do a bit more than an 80's version

None of this, is a measure of the quality of the Tennis. That will always be a personal judgement

Looks like we might agree second time  , and my views are similar but not sure about conclusion, I would conclude this makes both era stronger as well as weaker and hence the so called "weak era myths" are rubbish.  

invisiblecoolers wrote:Looks like we might agree second time  , and my views are similar but not sure about conclusion, I would conclude this makes both era stronger as well as weaker and hence the so called "weak era myths" are rubbish.  

I actually agree. Which is now getting way too worrying  Seriously, I think in fairness the likes of Haas suffered from the sudden change in playing conditions. This affected Henman, but he was at the end of his career. It of course didn't affect the Rafa generation as the change coincided with their rise

As usual, nothing is black and white

banbrotam wrote:I'd expect Rafa, Novak and Andy to win 3 out of 4 slams per year up to 2017 - providing they are reasonably healthy

So that is 12 out of 16.  So we do disagree .  I would be very surprised if they do that.  I think 6-8 yes, perhaps 9 or 10 if things go their way, but not more.

You left yourself a bit of an out though with the "reasonably healthy" clause.  One of the problems with aging is that you tend to have more niggles here and there.  Sure, if Rafa and Nole go on a tandem skydive after their final tomorrow and their parachute fails to open, then you have a fair excuse, but ordinary tennis related injuries should be factored into our estimates I think.

banbrotam wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Looks like we might agree second time  , and my views are similar but not sure about conclusion, I would conclude this makes both era stronger as well as weaker and hence the so called "weak era myths" are rubbish.  

I actually agree. Which is now getting way too worrying  Seriously, I think in fairness the likes of Haas suffered from the sudden change in playing conditions. This affected Henman, but he was at the end of his career. It of course didn't affect the Rafa generation as the change coincided with their rise

As usual, nothing is black and white

Very good point about conditions. Henman being the perfect example. In the space of 2 years he went from looking a great grass player of the faster courts, to really average one on the slower grass.

banbrotam wrote:

summerblues wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

\"summerblues wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Or maybe the class of last decade were a lot better than we ever gave them credit for

What does that have to do with the price of bread?

It does not matter how spectacular they may or may not be, but it is not like it is them who are preventing the young guys from advancing.

 
So the ability of these players who are at 27+ has no bearing on how well the youngsters are doing? Put another way, if those over 27 or 30 were playing worse, then the youngsters would surely be better ranked?

Ok, I misunderstood what you were saying.  I thought you were suggesting the top three were a lot better but you are suggesting that maybe the entire generation was a lot better.  Nevertheless, I still disagree.  If the entire generation around Rafa at al had been that great, we would have seen a reduction in the average age in the top 100 when they were coming along; but that never happened.

In any event, as I had said before, I am not certain that 27-30 is not the peak age now, I am just saying that I can see arguments in both directions.

Also, for all our arguing, we never actually stated what we mean by "peak years" vs "start of decline".  Maybe in terms of raw numbers we do not even disagree .  Over the four years 2010-2013, Rafa/Nole/Andy will have won 14 out of 16 slams played (Roger winning the other two).  If you are suggesting 27-30 as the "peak years" I read it to mean that they should pretty much repeat that over the 2014-2017 period (if not maybe do even better ).  I certainly do not expect that, but it is not like I expect them to fall off the cliff either.  I think they will likely continue to dominate in the immediate future (say next year) and only slowly start declining later.  If I were to guess how many slams combined the three of them will win during 2014-2017, I would probably guess 6-8 (and could perhaps, at a stretch, be convinced of even more) but certainly not something like, say, 12-16.

How many slams do you expect the three of them to win in 2014-2017?

Very difficult getting the wording correct with such discussions. Lydian's pieces shows this as where does 2010 fit into his argument!! I'd expect Rafa, Novak and Andy to win 3 out of 4 slams per year up to 2017 - providing they are reasonably healthy

Spot on Banbro, I can't disagree with that prognostication. I mean who else is going to beat 2 out of 3 these guys over 5 sets in back to back slam matches? Nobody that is who, at least not regularly. Supposedly, Roger has been in decline since 2007 but has won 5 slams since the onset of that decline. Of the next 12 slams I saw Rafa/Djoko/and Murray splitting 10 or 11 of them frankly, what will be interesting is to see what the distribution should be.

Danny_1982 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Looks like we might agree second time  , and my views are similar but not sure about conclusion, I would conclude this makes both era stronger as well as weaker and hence the so called "weak era myths" are rubbish.  

I actually agree. Which is now getting way too worrying  Seriously, I think in fairness the likes of Haas suffered from the sudden change in playing conditions. This affected Henman, but he was at the end of his career. It of course didn't affect the Rafa generation as the change coincided with their rise

As usual, nothing is black and white

Very good point about conditions. Henman being the perfect example. In the space of 2 years he went from looking a great grass player of the faster courts, to really average one on the slower grass.

These are well trodden discussions, BB and I have raised the "transitional era" discussion a number of times the past few years. The guys who are now still around aged 30-35 years old (and some before them inc. Henman) were the ones adversely affected by surface changes because they were brought up under fast conditions and didn't need to physically develop to the standard dictated by today's slow conditions. It's my belief it took many of them years to adjust to the slowing that took place in a marked sense between 2002-2009ish and its resulting change of physicality. Guys like Hewitt, Nalby, Youzhny, etc, were not particularly physical beasts to start with. They've had to adapt and that's taken many of them a long time. Some couldnt really adjust at all. Federer presciently recognised the physical route was important very early on and it paid dividends for him. The arrival of Nadal also raised the physical bar undoubtedly.

Up and coming youngsters at 18-19yo simply can't compete now like even Murray/Nadal/Djokovic were able to, the tour is much more physical now because it's slowed a lot even since 2008. This is why guys like Goffin look completely puny when they play someone like Djokovic. It takes a pro a good 4-5 years from physical maturity to condition themselves to the level needed on tour today and that's pushed the age of peaking right up. Aside from that I think we're in a fallow new talent period though.

And that brings us back to Murray, whose greater success at Slam level reflects, I believe, not any increase in skill or virtuosity but a more reliable ability to run the middle rangers into the ground, and combined with the timing of Nadals injury and Federers decline. The Federer effect is most marked, him being the guy who stopped him in three of his first four finals.

Just to be really fair, lets remember that they all benefit from previous greats declines. If Pete was still at his peak there's more than Andy who'd lack fast court Slams.

Exactly BB, that's my point re: Murray not being any better now than before. Just stronger and fitter. To be fair though, and to partially append my previous points, some of his route down Physical Lane has been driven by conditions slowing (surfaces slower, balls bigger, string/racquet tech).

Unfortunately the ATP/ITF guys around 2001 decided to send us down the grinding route...but they didn't cotton on increases in string and racquet tech too so the overall slowing/ralleying effect has been far too excessive. They need to row back abit to reintroduce more element of skill. This will also help youngsters coming into the sport make inroads towards the top without having to develop their muscles & lungs for 5-6 years after moving out of the juniors at 18.

Not 'just' stronger and fitter - there have been other improvements, as others have noted. His on-court mentality, for example, has improved. Given how important this factor is at the top level, such an improvement was probably more important than say, tweaking his DHBH technique.
Seems to me that concentrating on improvements in areas where you are most behind other players (fitness/mentality) is worthy of great credit.

And he was only really behind a couple of players anyway. He could have easily thought that if he just carried on doing what he was doing eventually he'd have a bit more luck and it would happen. Instead he trained harder so that mentally and physically he has narrowed even if not completely closed the gap in those areas to Djokovic and Nadal.

It's churlish to say he has been lucky in the last year. He's a nine times Masters winner and 7 times grand slam finalist. It would be utterly ridiculous for a player of that level not to have won a slam and he's beaten the best player in the world in both finals to do so! It isn't like he was lucky enough to face Puerta or Tsonga for an easy starter.

There is nothing wrong with how he has trained to improve. It's commendable. Nor do I believe his play style has anything to do with the back - if anything he plays shorter points now than 5 years ago. However, he does need to re-add more variety to his game. He's just at times a but too predictable at present.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Not 'just' stronger and fitter - there have been other improvements, as others have noted. His on-court mentality, for example, has improved. Given how important this factor is at the top level, such an improvement was probably more important than say, tweaking his DHBH technique.
Seems to me that concentrating on improvements in areas where you are most behind other players (fitness/mentality) is worthy of great credit.

Can someone alert the media, Julius actually makes a post that I can agree with. Good post. Murray had to address those areas or he would have been a taller version of Gasquet. Murray had to close the gap in power forehand and fitness to win slams. And if he wants to keep adding slams he needs to further solidify the second serve which when he has a bad day he can go back to just arming in some poor, poor second serves.

Born Slippy wrote:And he was only really behind a couple of players anyway. He could have easily thought that if he just carried on doing what he was doing eventually he'd have a bit more luck and it would happen. Instead he trained harder so that mentally and physically he has narrowed even if not completely closed the gap in those areas to Djokovic and Nadal.

It's churlish to say he has been lucky in the last year. He's a nine times Masters winner and 7 times grand slam finalist. It would be utterly ridiculous for a player of that level not to have won a slam and he's beaten the best player in the world in both finals to do so! It isn't like he was lucky enough to face Puerta or Tsonga for an easy starter.

There is nothing wrong with how he has trained to improve. It's commendable. Nor do I believe his play style has anything to do with the back - if anything he plays shorter points now than 5 years ago. However, he does need to re-add more variety to his game. He's just at times a but too predictable at present.

Agree with all of these comments. I mean Murray really did have a tough go breaking through the slam barrier in an era featuring lights out the clay court GOAT and maybe the second best player ever (who knows eventually 1st) and the GOAT to torment him through his early years. The man has been there so many times at the final hurdle and fought the good fight. On top of GOATs 1 and 2 he has had an all time great of the same exact age and similar style playing at his peak as well. Lets look at the one and two slam winners of the past and look at all the players Murray has played in slam finals. Fed in 2010 AO hit a purple patch where he played some of his best tennis, Djokovic at the AO in 2011; he ran up against unique talents even on a historical level at or near their best and he was very close to them.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Not 'just' stronger and fitter - there have been other improvements, as others have noted. His on-court mentality, for example, has improved. Given how important this factor is at the top level, such an improvement was probably more important than say, tweaking his DHBH technique.
Seems to me that concentrating on improvements in areas where you are most behind other players (fitness/mentality) is worthy of great credit.

Can someone alert the media, Julius actually makes a post that I can agree with.

In that case, I withdraw everything I said.  

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Not 'just' stronger and fitter - there have been other improvements, as others have noted. His on-court mentality, for example, has improved. Given how important this factor is at the top level, such an improvement was probably more important than say, tweaking his DHBH technique.
Seems to me that concentrating on improvements in areas where you are most behind other players (fitness/mentality) is worthy of great credit.

Can someone alert the media, Julius actually makes a post that I can agree with.

In that case, I withdraw everything I said.  

You really know how to poo in my burrito don't you Julius?

Come on Aza, can't believe I am kind of watching this match.

socal1976 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:And he was only really behind a couple of players anyway. He could have easily thought that if he just carried on doing what he was doing eventually he'd have a bit more luck and it would happen. Instead he trained harder so that mentally and physically he has narrowed even if not completely closed the gap in those areas to Djokovic and Nadal.

It's churlish to say he has been lucky in the last year. He's a nine times Masters winner and 7 times grand slam finalist. It would be utterly ridiculous for a player of that level not to have won a slam and he's beaten the best player in the world in both finals to do so! It isn't like he was lucky enough to face Puerta or Tsonga for an easy starter.

There is nothing wrong with how he has trained to improve. It's commendable. Nor do I believe his play style has anything to do with the back - if anything he plays shorter points now than 5 years ago. However, he does need to re-add more variety to his game. He's just at times a but too predictable at present.

Agree with all of these comments. I mean Murray really did have a tough go breaking through the slam barrier in an era featuring lights out the clay court GOAT and maybe the second best player ever (who knows eventually 1st) and the GOAT to torment him through his early years. The man has been there so many times at the final hurdle and fought the good fight. On top of GOATs 1 and 2 he has had an all time great of the same exact age and similar style playing at his peak as well. Lets look at the one and two slam winners of the past and look at all the players Murray has played in slam finals. Fed in 2010 AO hit a purple patch where he played some of his best tennis, Djokovic at the AO in 2011; he ran up against unique talents even on  a historical level at or near their best and he was very close to them.

You also need to consider though, that by Murray's own admission, those players all drove him to become a better player himself. My own personal worthless speculation is that he probably would have struggled to be top dog in any era (whatever an era is) - some players leapfrog to the top, other players need someone else to lead them somewhere near it. To me, Murray falls into the latter category.

That's interesting. Federer was an original. So is Nadal. Murray 2012/3 is arguably based on others. Such a player is likely to at best arrive close to the standard of those he aspires to.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:And he was only really behind a couple of players anyway. He could have easily thought that if he just carried on doing what he was doing eventually he'd have a bit more luck and it would happen. Instead he trained harder so that mentally and physically he has narrowed even if not completely closed the gap in those areas to Djokovic and Nadal.

It's churlish to say he has been lucky in the last year. He's a nine times Masters winner and 7 times grand slam finalist. It would be utterly ridiculous for a player of that level not to have won a slam and he's beaten the best player in the world in both finals to do so! It isn't like he was lucky enough to face Puerta or Tsonga for an easy starter.

There is nothing wrong with how he has trained to improve. It's commendable. Nor do I believe his play style has anything to do with the back - if anything he plays shorter points now than 5 years ago. However, he does need to re-add more variety to his game. He's just at times a but too predictable at present.

Agree with all of these comments. I mean Murray really did have a tough go breaking through the slam barrier in an era featuring lights out the clay court GOAT and maybe the second best player ever (who knows eventually 1st) and the GOAT to torment him through his early years. The man has been there so many times at the final hurdle and fought the good fight. On top of GOATs 1 and 2 he has had an all time great of the same exact age and similar style playing at his peak as well. Lets look at the one and two slam winners of the past and look at all the players Murray has played in slam finals. Fed in 2010 AO hit a purple patch where he played some of his best tennis, Djokovic at the AO in 2011; he ran up against unique talents even on  a historical level at or near their best and he was very close to them.

You also need to consider though, that by Murray's own admission, those players all drove him to become a better player himself. My own personal worthless speculation is that he probably would have struggled to be top dog in any era (whatever an era is) - some players leapfrog to the top, other players need someone else to lead them somewhere near it. To me, Murray falls into the latter category.

Can't really agree with that. He comes across to me more as a Federer type personality in this regard. Convince him he is the best player in the world and he would play like it. As it is, he has never quite been able to convince himself that he is the best. The best evidence is what tends to happen when draws open up for him - a personality as you describe might well feel the pressure of being the favourite (see Henman as a perfect example). Murray generally cleans up in those circumstances.

Henman coped wonderfully with the pressure of being home favourite - he consistently over-performed at Wimbledon.

Except that year.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Henman coped wonderfully with the pressure of being home favourite - he consistently over-performed at Wimbledon.

Nah, he was easily in the top 4 grass courters for several years. His record at Wimbledon is about as good as it should have been - except he probably should have won in 2001. It's more how he performed in the other slams I was thinking of. Some of the defeats in Australia in particular were indicative of a player who didn't cope well with being a favourite.

Born Slippy wrote:He's a nine times Masters winner and 7 times grand slam finalist. It would be utterly ridiculous for a player of that level not to have won a slam

I think it is pretty clear that he is at a level where it would be odd if he ended up with no slams.  But I think he has been at that level for a while, not just the last year or so.

I think the question is more as to whether (a) or (b) is closer to reality:

(a) He now improved to reach a level where he is winning slams while before he was not quite at that level, or
(b) He has been at a level good enough to win a slam for a while and the fact that he just happened to win his slams over the last year is more or less a coincidence.

I think (a) is probably the more widely accepted view, but I think some of the arguments made here (e.g., data lydian put together) may be suggesting that (b) may be closer to the truth.  In reality, I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.  We will never know for sure.

summerblues wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:He's a nine times Masters winner and 7 times grand slam finalist. It would be utterly ridiculous for a player of that level not to have won a slam

I think it is pretty clear that he is at a level where it would be odd if he ended up with no slams.  But I think he has been at that level for a while, not just the last year or so.

I think the question is more as to whether (a) or (b) is closer to reality:

(a) He now improved to reach a level where he is winning slams while before he was not quite at that level, or
(b) He has been at a level good enough to win a slam for a while and the fact that he just happened to win his slams over the last year is more or less a coincidence.

I think (a) is probably the more widely accepted view, but I think some of the arguments made here (e.g., data lydian put together) may be suggesting that (b) may be closer to the truth.  In reality, I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.  We will never know for sure.

I think you shouldn't doubt A is pretty true summerblues. Murray remember was the last of the big 4 to join the big 4. Yes he would beat the other 3 at a good clip and win masters titles. But I think small improvements are apparent to me when I watch his game. Sure Roger's decline helps Novak and Andy to win more. That was to expected just like Roger in his prime maybe kept Andy and Novak from winning earlier? We can't know for 100 percent and as most cases like this it is probably a case of both factors being present. Just like the young player argument, of course they benefit from decline of other players, that is structurally true about every player on the tour today and every player in the future, it shouldn't even really figure in the analysis. It really almost goes without mentioning I mean nobody expected Roger to last forever and when Murray and Djoko were young Roger beat them slams when he was at peak level and they were still growing into their boots.

As for coincidence without improvement argument to explain away recent slam wins I don't buy it. For a microcosm lets examine just Murray's losses at the AO in recent years. Just as an analogy, he got mauled horribly in 2010 against Roger. In 2011, he got mangled a little less so by Novak in the form of a lifetime. In 2012 Novak had to nearly kill himself to beat Murray. He didn't just lose the finals he appeared in when he was younger he was not really even close when one of the other 3 really turned it and were fully focused for the final.

I trust my eyes, I don't know I have a memory of watching these players perform and I can analyze a tennis match based on my own experiences. When I see Nadal, Djoko, and Murray it is clear as the light of day that they are better. Ferrer as well, little known fact the first time Ferrer broke into the top 10 he was still a smoker, now the guy runs marathons and has quit. The tour is stronger it is not just Murray or Djoko, these guys along with Nadal and fed before them are really lifting the bar.

Good post socal. Only thing I disagree with is the AO finals of 10 and 11. He got more mauled by Novak than he did by Federer. Against Roger he played one good set which he should have won.

Against Novak he was second best by a mile in all 3 sets. That match against Novak, and the USO semi against Rafa the same year are the only two times I wobbled in my opinion that he was a multi slam winner, such was the nature of those defeats and his performance and mentality during them.

AO 10' was indeed the final that worried me greatly at the time. Andy has plenty of opportunities, didn't take them and mentally caved in

I do agree that no-one would have stopped Nole, the following year